Third-Party Blues

Posted on Oct 9, 2008

It is not just what he doesn’t know, or can’t meaningfully talk about, that is troublesome to me. It is also what he does talk about, and claims to know. Obama’s acceptance speech boldly challenged McCain’s fitness to command. “You don’t defeat,” he declared, “you don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice, but that is not the change that America needs.” But Obama offered no vision of what he would propose to do. How do you defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries? How do you protect Israel and deter Iran? How do you stand up for Georgia? All Obama could offer was the following: “We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country. Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe.”

Obama needs to be careful here. He is no FDR, and he is no JFK. Both of those men were tested in times of war and peace in a way Obama can never lay claim to. What we get from Obama’s sophomoric pronouncement of “leadership” is, sadly, simply more tough talk, with no strategy: “As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” This raises the questions of what circumstances a President Obama might deem worthy of the sacrifice of American troops, and to what lengths a President Obama would go to ensure that all other options had been exhausted before committing our nation, and our troops, to war.

The more I listened to Obama, the more I realized that on the major issues of war and peace, there was in fact very little that separated him from the Republicans he opposes. Both have sold out American sovereignty in the name of Israeli security (or more important, Likud-inspired, AIPAC-driven policies falsely sold as being in the best interest of the Israeli people). Both assume Iranian nefarious intent, and point an accusatory finger at “Russian aggression” without reflecting on the cause-and-effect reality of irresponsible American foreign policy (the expansion of NATO, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and the installation on Polish and Czech soil of a ballistic missile defense shield claimed to be for the Iranian threat, but optimized for missiles launched from within Russia). Even on the issue of the “surge,” McCain’s great weakness, Obama has flipped, stating that the “surge” in Iraq has succeeded “beyond our wildest dreams.” The senator from Arizona could not have said it better himself. Doesn’t Obama realize that if he embraces the “surge,” he legitimizes the war in Iraq and as such positions McCain as the candidate of choice, since certainly America would want to go with the architect of the “surge,” and not some untested “Johnny come lately” who simply hangs on the coattails of another’s success? When Obama sells himself as the candidate of change, what change is he talking about?

While pondering such thoughts, I encountered none other than Ralph Nader, who was happy to point out the inherent contradictions that plague the Obama candidacy. I met Nader in the setting of a quiet, upscale suburban neighborhood on the outskirts of Minneapolis, where he and his running mate, the San Francisco-based lawyer and social activist Matt Gonzalez, were meeting with supporters and raising funds for their campaign. I had never met Nader in person before this evening, and must claim that while I was aware of his important role as a consumer advocate, I knew him best as the man who cost Al Gore the presidency. I myself have often spoken out in frustration at the role played by the Green Party in weakening the Democratic Party during national elections. But the importance of the role played by Ralph Nader is best explained by Nader himself. A colleague of mine had asked Nader why he kept running for the presidency, instead of trying to get into Congress where he could perhaps more effectively pursue his advocacy. “Because this isn’t about the power of one,” Nader replied, “but empowering all. The issues I am advocating for cannot be trivialized by pretending that a single vote in Congress will make a difference. These are national issues, and they require a national stage.” Both Nader and Gonzalez spoke about the importance of a third party in America today, at a time when there was no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on so many key issues, especially (but not limited to) foreign policy and national defense. I wasn’t sold when I went to the Nader for President gathering, but the need for genuine choice for the American people was driven home that night, not only by what Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez said, but also by the overall political setting in which it was said.

There is no greater illustration of the Democrat-Republican political melding than Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman, the one-time “liberal Democrat” from Connecticut who once stood as the running mate of Al Gore, delivered a rancor-filled speech at the Republican National Convention in which he spoke in support of his “good friend” John McCain, and belittled Barack Obama, barely four years removed from the 2004 Democratic National Convention in which Obama made his national debut under the approving eyes of Joe Lieberman himself. Lieberman’s speech came almost two years to the day that Obama personally campaigned on behalf of Lieberman in a hotly contested Senate race against the anti-war Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont. Lamont went on to win the Democratic primary, only to lose the general election to the newly re-minted “Independent” Joe Lieberman, whose platform looked more Republican than his Republican opponent’s when it came to the issue of the Iraq war. Obama was among the Democratic senators who bent over backward to welcome Lieberman into the Democratic Senate Caucus, enabling them to maintain their slim majority in the U.S. Senate. Lieberman is the personification of just how baseless American politics is today. While Republicans and Democrats might debate around the fringes, when it comes to the major issues of the day, both parties stand for virtually the same thing. The only difference is around which party will the power, and the money associated with such power, achieve orbit.

Just discovered this news yesterday, and see the previous commentator also discovered it on DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman….OCTOBER 19th at 8 pm “something” is being done to allow some national visibility to the proper challenge tendered and is viable for a WIN for the BEST choice voted by VOTERS not the media.

We are NOT ruled by the media choices, and two choices are NOT before us, SIX are, and there are 100 million registered voters nationally who are NOT in the two parties at a registration level, 21.3 by clear choice, and the others by protocol that 24 states (82 million) do not register party. You do not elect a party, you elect a candidate, and on election day, the BEST for the OFFICE voted for is supposed to win. Those of us who hate what is in office now are going to vote them out, it may be 100 million will do it. 62 million are registered in the two parties. If they want to, they certainly are allowed to vote for the outside challenge.

I am voting for Ralph Nader, but, this time, I see him as the BEST and the awakening of the public that they can choose the BEST means they MUST compare the merits of all six and vote the BEST into office.

The media is offering ugly tyranny against Democracy, and that is because the Democrats are insisting on they own our votes, they do not.

I am NOT voting for obama, he is not ever getting my vote. I hate the Democrats, they are villians, and do not deserve my vote. They allowed what we have by Bush. And, the claim of party rule against sanity is theirs to hold the proper responsibility of why and how Bush got into office, and yes, of course, this time they think it nets their lesser of two evils into office.

I am voting for the BEST of the SIX and that man has a track record to support the ON TRACK platforms.

see my blog for latest post on the sunday debate with links, and previous posts for the statistics of 50 states to show the challenge of status quo can happen on November 4th.

Net change by a majority at the ballot box, as it is supposed to happen.

Ritter writes: “There isn’t time between now and Election Day to create a viable third-party candidate, and so the sad reality is one of two deeply flawed men, the byproduct of a deeply flawed political system, will serve as president for the next four or eight years.”

I read phrases like this one (or, “This is simply not the year to ‘waste’ your vote on an Independent,”) all the time.

As a Nader supporter, I cannot help but ask Mr. Ritter where he’s been all year. Ralph Nader announced his presidential campaign early on in 2008, and, frankly, his decision to run for president again was hardly surprising. Had Ritter acted right away, he could have helped volunteer for Nader/Gonzales ‘08 and worked to make Nader a “viable third-party candidate.”

This is one of the main things about liberal Democrats who consistently rule out the possibility of voting for Nader every election that frustrates me. People complained in 2004 that there was “too much at stake,” to vote for Nader then, just as they did in 2000, and I am sure will likely claim again in 2012 (assuming Ralph Nader runs again; he’ll be pretty old by that point).

My point is—when will it be the “right” year for a majority of Americans to vote for an Independent candidate for president? When will it be considered “safe” to vote for Nader?

The reason there is always “so much at stake,” every four years is because none of the corporate-controlled presidents we’ve elected in the last few decades has brought about any real progressive changes.

In fact, most of them have rolled back democracy, rather than enrich it.

Cyrena and 95flhtlc….Cyrena claimed no one is demonstrating against Nader - the media will not talk “straight” - an overview THEME of the REAL NADER is not OFFERED - when he offered the Green Party the media wouldn’t have it, when he offers Independent Candidate, the media refuses presentation…WHAT should be given from a corporate media is strong merits but they want parrots and lipstick no merits no change for real—mainstream for public v corporate commercialism—truth dig, let’s get some truth up front….
TWO PARTY POWERMONGER FACT DEMONSTRATED: ONE VERY APPARENT ‘DEMONSTRATION’ AS A LITERAL FACT was by Howard Dean in 2004, shown (METRO PHOTO) holding a protest sign outside a Nader Rally in Oregon AFTER DEAN, the only previously supposedly viable anti-war candidate had dropped out, another fact OF POWERMONGERING AGAINST NADER TO WIN, PENNSYLVANIA ILLEGAL PROTEST BY LAWYERS ILLEGALLY UPHELD BY THE COURT. It was organized crime by the Democrat Party. Both parties love powermongering they are NOT for the people,they are for themselves, liars, “A vote for Nader is NOT for Nader—if you like them better, then yes. What is Nader offering? People power against corruption.

Some of politics is gamesmanship, while it is totally SERIOUS business and for a proper Presidential Result, still, when you are in a party campaign race during the primaries, honest humility to allow competition is supposed to net the majority rule, and I have only seen Nader offering what looks to me like inordinate humility to the point of what they did to Dean….as if the candidate is not wanted BY THE MEDIA as if that is the PUBLIC’S VIEW…Nader wants fair competition, entirely. He wants the debates. He knows the polls were not fair.

“no Independent has ever won before” doesn’t mean it is not ok to try, the media presents his actual track record as if it were not an astonishment not an offering worth a presidency but a public interest track record offensive to ....politics so used to offering promises that can and will not be delivered - the public votes as a “nation of sheep” as if they have no real democracy….it is heinous.

The parrot, I hated the parrot, in the extreme. And, I believe I saw tears on Nader’s face, and he turned his head from the Camera, because the reason was the reality of the question and the answer…DOES THE MEDIA WANT WHAT THEY SHOULD WANT, or IS THIS PARROT WHAT they wanted!

Oh yes, they wanted the parrot, the media wanted that put down to try to put Nader down, but it showed WHO THE MEDIA IS. FACTS in your face, and you will not see the facts.

He is not interested in lipstick on a pig, he is not interested in the photo of Sarah Palin with an American Flag bikini holding a rifle with her smile that comes with anything she says, good bad or indifferent….parrots are preferred by Nader, to be honest…I know it.

I watched the parrot video for only one reason, to see if Nader had lost his mind. He had not. The status quo is what the media tells you you want to elect!!!! The majority does not believe in the duty of yourselves to pick the best and admit the mainstream owes the proper competition?

Parrots get their attention.

Blame Nader!

I hated it, I agree.

(I believe he is working with the “army that he has” to “Fight the Good Fight” (title of a book by Nader, recent)

HE DESERVES FAIR AND PROPER PRESENTATION. I think he is beautiful, sincere, gracious, and the best.

“...and the powermongering demonstrated against Nader should be seen for what it is…”

Well Elizabethe, that isn’t gonna happen, because there *is* no ‘powermongering’ being demonstrated against Nader. Since no such thing is happening, there’s nothing to see.

What you’re complaining about is that the Mainstream media, and the mainsteam of the political system isn’t going to bow in front of Nader to pay the homage to him that he believes is his due. No one is making the pilgrimage TO Nader, so you claim that as a demonstration AGAINST him. That’s the typical arrogance that he displays. So don’t even TRY to say that people are demonstrating anthing AGAINST Nader, because that’s a total falsehood, and would require some actual ‘action’ on the part of whomever is allegedly doing this. But that’s not the case. Nobody is paying any attention to Nader, (or at least the majority isn’t) because Nader doesn’t put himself out there for the majority to see, or get to know. Nader truly believes that ‘the people should come to HIM’ and not that he should go to the people. And he believes this IN SPITE of the fact that he isn’t all that ‘approachable’ by the average citizen.

This is quite acceptable in many cultures, particularly in the cultures of the Middle East, which is where his family immigrated from. You see how even Dick Cheney is willing to run over to Saudi Arabia to kiss the royal’s asses. But, that isn’t the way the majority of American’s are indoctrinated to expect things. And now, after 8 years, people are PISSED at the government, and they want somebody who isn’t making this about ‘them’ but about US.

So, this isn’t ‘about’ Ralph Nader, and that isn’t the media’s fault. It’s about US. If Nader wanted to humble himself to the extent that he’d be willing to actually ASK for our vote, instead of TELLING us that he’s the only one capable of leading us out of or away from the abyss, it might make a difference. But, he never has, and there’s no reason to expect him to now. He’s already shown his distain for the system by refusing to take part in it, and that means that if he’s turning his nose up at the system, (has consistently refused to run for Congress) he’s turning his nose up at us.

Yeah, we’re grateful for the safety regulations that he worked up and insisted upon. But since he couldn’t be so bothered with joining the system, much of the work he did those many decades ago has become undone, because he never wanted to commit to a life of public service.

So be it. Now we’ll elect somebody who has made public service a priority since day one. Barack Obama organized people to help themselves in New York. He did the same thing on the South Side of Chicago. He ran for and obtained public office in the Il State Legislature, and then in the US Congress. He’s consistently made himself available at the behest of the public, and Nader has not, even though he could have.

Yes, I’d like the man that talks to a parrot to be president. Really. If you don’t put a “third party” in congress, what exactly is is a “third party” going to get accomplished in the whitehouse? Answer: Nothing.

Comment to Crimes against the State - saying Alternative Media should do the fight to represent third parties…only if they are truly due that level of “insult”...and I do not believe Ralph Nader belongs in that camp, I believe those who want only protest status belong in that camp, and yes, with the criminal level of the positions of the sleezy and corporate corrupt claiming they are the deliverers of our democracy, I totally disagree with that, and did not feel any obligation to vote when I believed my only two choices were the two parties, finally, I was aware I did not support either as president and I would not ever vote for “evil” corrupt sleeze when the outcome is what we have in front of us, and the powermongering demonstrated against Nader should be seen for what it is…protest against the public interest by the corporate corrupt who think they “own” politics with their money corrupt use of taxes that are indeed produced by the earnings of workers in the private sector, but after the take home pay is used, the taxes are intended for such things as police, firemen, healthcare, and so forth, we KNOW the government is NOT for the corrupt greed, not for corporate bailouts, not for unwanted military aggrandizement, the taxes are for the public benefit, and are supposed to stay in the red. Nader’s platforms are for the MAINSTREAM and his platforms support the U.S. Constitution.

Both McCain, Obama, and certainly BUSH do not offer proper priorities on track for a balanced budget that uses taxes to respect the mainstream at the majority rule public interest level.

This is not a matter for laughing when asked why the majority doesn’t expect the challenge to the status quo to be viable, it is viable and up to the individual to vote individual truth to net a total that reflects an HONEST majority. Government is not for liars.

The media is not “alternative” that needs to address the majority rule. The mainstream is not doing it, and it is because they are corporate corrupt and they like it and have admitted it, and are in the face of the enlightened fans of the third party challenge, which, YES, Nader identifies with them. He had offered the Greens a chance, but they saw themselves as little, and they did not offer the proper support, I can say that, as a registered Independent and a Green Wannabe, who, I admit, I did not know why I had not joined, I wondered, “what are you waiting for?” They need the numbers. But, to answer that quickly, I never heard of them until 2000 when I was told Ralph Nader was running (August) and I asked, “Really? What party?!!!” I believe I had told the anti-war demonstrator that I had stopped voting and was against war and against nukes both at 100 percent. When he said, “Green Party” I was happy, and ran to the library to find an out of date, but nice book, on the Green Party. The copyright was about 1986 or 1985. Subtitle, for the benefit of this audience as to relevance about “mainstream”—the subtitle said, “we are neither left nor right, we are out in front”—well,yes, I agree, but on principle, not on track record at the level I believe deserves the Presidency, and I believe both Nader and the Greens deserve mainstream publicity, but also the other third parties belong in the picture. The public is supposed to show the true level of majority rule, and the voters who want the other votes to count for something are supposed to get the national limelight, but at the proportionate level. It is for the PEOPLE to decide.

The mainstream media owes DEMOCRACY to the mainstream to net majority rule!

“We the People” rule as sovereign at the ballot box. Two party rule is in office, not in the election system. 24 states do not register party, just voters to vote (one would hope free will choice to net the best as a majority choice and “rule” proven)—82 million voters are in those 24 states.

I discovered that reality “we do not register party” from states such as Texas (over 12 million) and Vermont (425,921) and realized—oh my gosh, that must be entirely historical. Entirely. 26 states allow party declaration, and the current, as of June 2008 statistics show a overview of a significant number OUTSIDE the two parties: 21.3 million and—IF you contrast the outside v the combined “inside” at the voter registration party enrollment level, the 62 million in the COMBINED two parties against those NOT registered in those two parties, namely the status quo “established” parties, it is 38% v 62%.

Certainly the outside HAS the right to believe they have a REAL CHANCE to WIN at a MAJORITY RULE level, and that they should, if they do not like the status quo.

The polls have insisted on two party rule, and only as of today, have I seen progress on forcing the polls to offer accuracy, and include Nader and the others in the Gallup polls. On the Nader campaign website, they offer a report that the Gallup poll responded to the Nader supporters’ request that they include the other candidates when they offer a Gallup Poll.

I had asked all 10 to fix their polls in 2004, and yes, I asked in writing and did phone follow-up. They replied, in one case, “we’ve been doing this for twenty years, you are asking us to change?” I was horrified at the insolent stupidity, but figured everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, and I replied with “PR” hoping to net the required change, “It is understandable (it is really NOT), if you have not been asked before, that you hadn’t made the change, but, I am asking you now, (2004) to net the accuracy required for Nader, because I am certain it is the polls that makes the public believe he is not where I know he belongs, and the pre-emptive two party slanting (“if the election were tomorrow, who will you vote for”...they ask that before the challengers have had any visibility, and that forces the status quo to be an assumed want to keep that way situation, when sanity says democracy is supposed to net change…of course, and the proper question should be WHO DO YOU WANT for PRESIDENT, because IF you dared ask a retroactive question, did you believe you could not vote for Nader and get a win, the majority would laugh, and it is not funny, it is the media and they owe, and all 10 were asked in 2004, I was NOT involved in 2000. I did not know he was running in 2000 until August. Things were already horrific with the two party against the public opinion rule, as if wanted by the public, and I knew something bad happened, I have no knowledge as to what, but RIGHT NOW we have 3 weeks to force change, and public view of a proper WHO IS BEST question and all six tendered for honest polls.

Obviously it will net accuracy for the present. Whether we get majority rule on November 4 is a separate question, but we have to try.

The US two party system IS a ploy, Inherit, an historical conspiracy of the powerful. The function of the Constittion was to restrict and prevent democracy, not further it, so the powerful could keep their land, slaves and property.

Of course that this isn’t what you learned in high school, Inherit, through the many years it probably took you to complete it.
****************************************

On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day you managed to actually make a point I can agree with, sort of, despite the fact that you couched it in the idiot language of pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric.

OF COURSE the founding fathers “rigged” it. THAT’S WHAT THE “GREAT COMPROMISE” WAS ALL ABOUT! They were ensuring that the states retained power over the population and therefore their own local control of the states. However, they never had a clue that it would result in a two-party system. The first party, the Federalists, were barely a party. The Republicans (Democratic-Republicans, now the Democrats) were the first REAL party.

Define “many” years. It actually didn’t take that long. After all, our school didn’t require us to learn the bullshit rhetoric used by the pseudo-revolutionaries. You know, you write like a 60’s radical—as they did back in the 60’s.

The US two party system IS a ploy, Inherit, an historical conspiracy of the powerful. The function of the Constittion was to restrict and prevent democracy, not further it, so the powerful could keep their land, slaves and property.

Of course that this isn’t what you learned in high school, Inherit, through the many years it probably took you to complete it.

We have a two party system that actively fights third party ballot access at the state a federal level, research the debate commission act.
***********************************
Research “The Great Compromise” if you want a real understanding of why we have a two party system. Sure the 2 main parties try to push 3rd parties out. But the reason they are successful goes back to the Constitution Convention that created our nation and government and made a system in which only 2 parties could thrive.

It’s not due to a plot. It’s due to the Constitution’s attempt to preserve the influence of the states, small or large, versus the population.

Thanks so much for the informative post. I too have lived in many places, and always as a public servant. My experiences with management were similar to yours, but I was determined NOT to be run out. Otherwise, there would be that many ‘fewer’ of us to actually take care of real PEOPLE, rather than allowing the management to get over on them.

And, THAT’S what I mean about working ‘within’ the system. One has little power to do any of that, from outside of the system, whichever ‘system’ it is that we’re talking about. I’m not saying or suggesting that we can ‘change’ the entire structure, or even help every single body. But your strength was in what you did, and it was obvious in your evaluations…that you cared about the clients, and that they knew it. THAT was the point, and at the end of the day, your purpose in being there. It was to serve your clients, and at least SOME of them (who probably would *not* have otherwise been served) were taken care of.

There’s a limited amount that ANY ‘one’ of us can do, but whatever we can do, (I’d like to believe) is better than nothing at all. And yes, over time…even if it’s a long time, it picks up and some of those changes become permanent, and we spread what little we DO have, to others that can and hopefully will do the same.

The airlines (and other necessities) are nationalized in most socialized democracries. In sucvh a case, a worker would not lose their pension, retirement, etc, just because the airline messed up. As for doing it efficiently—Scandanavian Airlines has had ONE fatal crash. Ever.

I realize that the countries of Scand. are smaller.

Everytime I tried to “work within the system to change it”, for one, it rarely worked and , two, I usually ended up getting angry and quitting, or making it oh-so-obvious I “had to leave”. It would usually be over complaining to “management” about lousy client conditions or meeting a client in a coffee shop when they were suicidal rather than locking them up.

Workimg for 3 county govts (in Ohio), one state govt in OH, one county govt in NH—dont even ask—I went in August and it looked pretty. One in S. CA and one in Fla. So, it was harder to “transfer benefits”.

From what I learned, the combination of power and morality were extremely difficult to come by.

I need not have been worried—when you go on Medicaid, they take your PERS anyway! (If you are paying into PERS, you dont pay as much into SS, so you wont receive that, either)

I am certainly not saying that any one of my co-workers was “immoral”—to the contrary! Some of the people I worked with, with what was considered to be the “worst of the de-institutionalized”, were some of the most patient, kind, caring ane respectful people I’d ever met. Alot of them had worked with these people IN tehe institutions, for many years, but only had high school. When they closed the warehouse, they had to apply to “work under me”, because I gad a BA then. Telling a 56 yr old Af. Am. woman how to work with clients , she had devoted half of her life to, was difficult.(I was in my early 20s) My boss kept giving me the “10 Minute Mgr.” and other “mgmt” books—I consisitently got low scores on that, but not on the actions towards clients, from anyone on my team.

In fact, when I decided to take a position elsewhere, I asked for my evals and a letter. Joe said, “horrible mgmt skills, never delegates , (I alwasy thought that I shouldnt ask someone else to do something I woudl not do myself), but, her one outstanding asset, is , that she genuineley cares about each and every clinet. She believes she is “working for them”. (Quote Joe’s). And the clients know it.”

And, that is what it is a public servent’s job to do. We are not here to “school them” nor project our beliefs on him. Candidatez should present their beliefs and respond to what is best for the majority of the population (their bosses), once elected. It is nothing more than a job interview. WE pay their salary. WE put them where they are (or not) And , they should never forget it.

“To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice” Confucius

Alright, Cyrena, if it makes you feel better I will use your language. You didn’t ‘support’ the bill, you just wanted Congress to do SOMETHING. I suppose the other Dems that voted for it didn’t ‘support’ it either.

Not being familiar with this terminology, I suppose you could say the Dems ‘opposed’ it. It reminds one, does it not, of Orwell’s characterization of political language. But this is what one has to do if one wants to be one the INSIDE of politial power. I hope my accomidation to your language helps to ease your small, cold, black heart.

In spite of voters resistance to elevating Senators to the executive branch, we now have a choice between a Senator and a Senator. Who cares what voters prefer

The news media still refers to the USA as a “democracy” It never was. No one corrects them.

There is NO published desenting opinion regarding the “bailout” plan. Obama, McCain, and Joe {(D) Citigroup}Biden voted for it.

NAFTA Proposed by Bush, enacted by Clinton, Supported and expanded by Bush II, is now favored by both major parties regardless of the fact that a majority of US citizens (one might even say “Americans here) would like it repealed.

Folktruther,
I failed to mention to you earlier, (and for the record) that I DID NOT ‘support’ this last bail out of Wall Street, just like I didn’t ‘support’ the 2001 and 2002 bailouts of Wall Street. Again, why would you say that? There has been a history of Wall Street/Corporate bailouts since the 1970’s, (I posted a time line here once) and I haven’t “supported” any of them. I clearly don’t understand the motivations behind your slander. Please give me a hint.

Just as an aside, I was employed by one of the several ‘bailed out’ airlines after 9/11. Those same airlines fired thousands of their workers, even after the bail outs. That was 7 years ago, and for the most part, (to the extent that I’ve been able to follow them and the project) MOST of those workers have not been able to find other employment. They are without any of their retirement benefits, and of course many of them were employed by the same companies for years, because that was back in the era where people generally went to work for a single company, and made it their ‘careers’ even though in my own language, a ‘career’ is not the same as a ‘job’.

All of that said, I’ve been about as ‘anti-corporation’ for as long as I can remember, which is probably why I was generally the biggest pain in the ass of corporate management at my own company for as long as I was. None of that changes the ‘reality’ of how the system has come about, and how interconnected it is to everything else. And, I alone haven’t been able to prevent that from happening. I’m a renegade, not a miracle worker, and the only GOOD I’ve ever been able to accomplish, has been from working WITHIN the system, since without the opportunity to put my hands on the real motor, I wouldn’t have been able to accomplish shit. Instead, I’d be like everybody else standing on the outside looking in, and bitching about not being able to do anything about anything.

Now I don’t support ‘churches’ either Folktruther. But if I see one on fire, and I know that there are a bunch of people inside of it likely to burn to death, I’m gonna call the fire department, not just watch it burn down.

So with this most recent bailout, I didn’t support the terms of it either, but I knew SOMETHING needed to be done. There WERE far better plans. None of them good, but some better than what they came up with. So no, I don’t like it a damn bit. Now, tell me how that changes anything.

“They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops. This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.” —————————————————————————-
That’s exactly what I recommend - voting for Obama and the Democrats without illusions. We are at a critical point in history. International socialism is being born in the bosom of international capitalism. Obama just happens to be present at this moment to sieze the time. Check out this link from the Real News on the nationalization of banks.

Thank you for your post. It seems suspect, that the verbiage is spelled out this way, “or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations…

Is there a document we can refer to (that you’re aware of) which enlightens us as to “government provacations”. In effect, it appears to me this is claiming that, we (the government) can invoke civil disorder, and if we do… it will be YOUR fault. Am I reading this correctly…?

Here is where Bush took away Posse Comitatus Act power. It also says it in a signing statement.

“The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations… . Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl LEVIN (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John WARNER (R-Va.). Sen. Ted KENNEDY openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan HUNTER (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent… .

“They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops. This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.”

I agree, on both points. Your second proposal casts much needed light upon the concerns I think others also have in this regard. And I do think there is an argument to be made in this regard. Absolutely.

Obviously, this is not the determination I have come to in this regard. But yes… this is something I could qualify, no illusions… sure.., I can certainly understand WHY someone may choose to go that route. Good point.

The problem with arguing with people like Cyrena and Tony Wicher is that they are intellectually dishonest, Cyrena creatively so. They both support militarism and corporate control and Cyrena supported the bailout swindle. As the Dem party goes to the right the Dem truthers become more and more dishonest, like the Gop truthers.

~~~~~

Come on Folktruther, quit lying with the negative rhetoric. There is nothing ANYWHERE in any of my posts that would suggest or in any way imply that I am in favor of ‘militarism’, because I’ve made it abundantly clear on multiple occassions that I am NOT. If you wanna disagree with me on a valid point, that’s fine, and people SHOULD argue. But the intellectual dishonesty is all yours for saying the above.

You’ve greatly diminished yourself in making such statements, especially when it’s not even in your own defense.

~~~~

Outraged, I think the Constitution is still in effect as well. Maybe somebody should tell Dick Bush.

I’m not sure how many times I can state the obvious. I tried the best way the first time, when I told you that anti-trust laws are totally disregarded, and specifically be CORPOEATIONS. I don’t think you’re than dense, but maybe I’m wrong.

I explained that DEREGULATION has made anti-trust laws obsolete, and it doesn’t have shit to do with the FCC. You fail Outraged. Go to a very simple book, and find out what anti-trust laws are about, specifically in terms of the MARKET PLACE!!!

Here’s an example of market place anti-trust Outraged. Airline A, (no longer constrained by regulations) decides that they want to drive their competition out of business. So, on the routes that they SHARE with the competition, they decide to lower their fares. They lower their fares for maybe 6 months, say from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Kansas City. Now here you are, and you have a choice to pay $28.00 to get between those two points on airline A, or you can pay $140.00 for the same trip on Airline B. The AVERAGE person is going to go for the lower fare. Now when Airline B starts losing their business on that route, (because they can’t afford to operate at those prices, generally because they are a smaller operation) and they lose business the same way on other routes where they’re also competitive, they go out of business. THAT’S how the big guys knock the little guys right out of the sky.

And, once the competition is gone, then airline A hikes that former $28.00 fare up to $342.00, and YOU (the consumer) are forced to pay it, because by then, Airline A is the only game in town. They’ve wiped out the competition, which is what protects the consumer, and THAT is anti-trust. It’s illegal, immoral, and it happens every day of the year.

The democratic party is still the center-right, pro-war, pro-poverty party it was ten years ago; it has not been remade and certainly not by delusional idiots who thought that voting for the right wing celebrity candidate in the primaries would ‘change the party’ but will just have something worse than Bill Clinton.

There is an alternative, Thatcherites, and I’m glad some of us are pursuing it. The reforms I listed in my earlier post are completely possible.

That the Dem party has been remade is simply absurd given its sellout of the Dem rank and file. But more and more of this cynicism will be exhibited by Dem apologists as the party continues to move to the right.——————————————————————————-
Which it isn’t doing, it’s moving to the left, which is what you would expect in these economic times.

SCOTT—YOU WROTE While we will never know for certain, I am strongly inclined to believe that, had Obama in fact been a senator in 2002, his status as a political animal with high aspirations would have compelled him to take the same politically expedient move all of his similarly inclined senatorial colleagues did, and vote in favor of the war powers resolution.
BUT http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm
Barack Obama’s Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War
POOR ON YOUR PART, SCOTT, TO ASSUME BARACK WOULD NOT DO THE SAME THING IF HE WERE IN THE SENATE. HE GAINED NOTHING FOR DOING IT IN HIS STATE SENATOR RACE, RIGHT!?

Outraged, I’m sure you followed Cyrena’s argument. The US electoral system is not rigged against third parties because the Dems themselves have been remade into a third party. and anyone who doesn’t think so is anal. Presumably therefore the old Dem hacks around Obama, and Biden his VP, have also been remade. It’s been a huge success!

The problem with arguing with people like Cyrena and Tony Wicher is that they are intellectually dishonest, Cyrena creatively so. They both support militarism and corporate control and Cyrena supported the bailout swindle. As the Dem party goes to the right the Dem truthers become more and more dishonest, like the Gop truthers.

Unless you are amused by the gyrations and sophistry of the arguments, there is no point arguing with them. They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops. This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.

That the Dem party has been remade is simply absurd given its sellout of the Dem rank and file. But more and more of this cynicism will be exhibited by Dem apologists as the party continues to move to the right.

Twice, regarding major issues, even with the people (not just progressives) decidedly against FISA and the bailout, Obama voted against the people’s wishes and in favor of big business. This was no small matter.

I’m not buying the stuff about the system being rigged against a 3rd party, when I’ve been part of a huge (and so far successful) movement to remake the Democratic Party. And for those who can think beyond one channel, THAT is the same as a 3rd party!! Only anal people have troubles when something changes its character, without changing its name, or vice versa. And no, none of it happens overnight. But, I damn sure know that working from within the system is the only way to make any significant changes. Nader has made it clear that he will not do that. ——————————————————————————-
cyrena,

I too am proud to be part of this amazingly successful movement to make the Democratic party democratic again. Nader worked within the system back in the sixties and made significant changes. Since then he has accomplished zip, less than zip - he really fucked us all over in 2000, and still he hasn’t changed. Obama has invited him back in but he refuses. “Anal” is a good word to describe Nader and his followers.

Your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance. Nor did I say the neocons, I said “christo-fascists”—yet again you “know” what I’m saying without bothering to say it. Must be that Marxist “science” again. ——————————————————————————-
ITW,

Yeah, you said “christofascists”, not “neocons”. Folktruther’s response was not relevant to your point. Folktruther does not trouble himself with such sensitivity but just blurs other people’s meaning to suit himself and posts one of his ideological canned responses.

Your comment: “I’m going to say this again. If this were the MARKET PLACE, they would NOT be ‘in trouble’ because DEREGULATION has made antitrust legislation IN THE MARKET PLACE, *OBSOLETE*.

And, I explained this. It’s OK if you don’t know what you’re talking about Outraged. It’s NOT OK if Nader doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and you chose to take up what is clearly wrong information. It’s not a crime to be ignorant of things, but it is morally wrong to willfully remain ignorant.”

You might want to let the FTC know this then, cause…ah…apparently they don’t. From their website:

“Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.” In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

And of course:

“In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.”

And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws.”

~~~~~

Outraged,

I’m going to say this again. If this were the MARKET PLACE, they would NOT be ‘in trouble’ because DEREGULATION has made antitrust legislation IN THE MARKET PLACE, *OBSOLETE*.

And, I explained this. It’s OK if you don’t know what you’re talking about Outraged. It’s NOT OK if Nader doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and you chose to take up what is clearly wrong information. It’s not a crime to be ignorant of things, but it is morally wrong to willfully remain ignorant.

Inherit’s last post is a good illustration of this identification with power rather than people. He states explicitly that he admires the tactics, strategy and effectiveness of the neocons, if not their politics. But their strategy is part of their politics, Inherit merely wants to adapt them to the Dem wing of the Dem-Gop bloc. As does Syrena, et al.
*****************************************

Your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance. Nor did I say the neocons, I said “christo-fascists”—yet again you “know” what I’m saying without bothering to say it. Must be that Marxist “science” again.

To not be able to differ between tactics and strategy, versus the actual objectives is why YOU and your beliefs will always be relegated to a tiny little fringe.

I make no apology for admiring the effectiveness of a political movement even if I detest and oppose their objectives.

I see, of course, Outraged agrees with you about me. I’m not surprised. He’s as unobservant as you—I was addressing Cyrena, not debating either of you as that’s useless.

Your comment: “Outraged, I usually respect your opinions, but you do seem a tad evangelical on this one.

If Nader gets enough votes to squeak McCain through, you will have have supported making everyones point and I believe Nader’s.”

Well… I suppose that depends upon your vantage point. LOL

All voices should be heard. It might SEEM that I personally invoke the Nader candidacy more often here than most, but I don’t see that I’ve endorsed Nader any MORE than Obama’s supporters endorse their choice for president. So are they “evangelical” also. Or is it heresy to oppose the “true” god, Obama…? LOL

It will not be Nader’s fault, nor mine, if (with a fair vote count of course) Obama doesn’t win. The fact that it is a close race AT ALL, illuminates the weakness of Obama’s positions to ensure a win. He makes those choices, not I….and not Nader.

Your comment: “Outraged, the objection of Scheer, Jackpine, etc that Nader has not helped build a party is a reasonable point. He is an honest liberal, but indepedenent liberals are no substitute for a mobilized movement. Which would not be based on one person. That is one reason why I favor McKinney.”

I agree and disagree, I guess it depends more specifically on what you mean by building a movement. Nader has mobilized many people and is/was instrumental in bringing many issues to the fore including third parties. He has worked to build the green party when he ran as their candidate.

What Nader is asserting is that the two major parties are colluding to marginalize third parties and therefore NEVER allow third parties to gain ANY type of foothold in the political arena. Also, I do not see Nader’s candidacy as a “one man band” so to speak. If it is, then why would he have run as the Green Party candidate? I know why he didn’t run in the Democratic Party, he’s sees them as corrupted by corporate dollars. I agree.

It appears that the main argument of “not having a party” is the supposition of the dems and repubs, but yet they are the ones colluding to keep Third Parties out. Which is the reason the Debate Commission is ran for and by the two major parties. The debates should be ran by a neutral organization, such as was the case when it was ran by the League of Women Voters.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quotes:
All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all.

Your comment: “It really doesn’t matter to me if Nader makes Obama look like a schmuck. You seem to be falling into the Bushite logic: if you’re not with us then you’re against us.

How does that translate to the ideology of “you’re with us or against us”? I think Nader does make Obama look like a schmuck. Twice, regarding major issues, even with the people (not just progressives) decidedly against FISA and the bailout, Obama voted against the people. This was no small matter. I feel confident a President Nader would not have signed this legislation.

In response to your comments regarding third parties, I haven’t taken issue with that at all.

To answer your questions:

“It should also be noted that the more Naderites resemble proselytizing evangelicals, the less likely many of us are to listen to them.

Finally, if the system is rigged against third parties then the only way to get third parties involved is to change the system. Do you really think that the best way to go about that is to elect a president only?”

My answer: No, and I’ve never claimed as much.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the House, where candidates can be successful on a personal level?”

My answer: I think this is needed ALSO, so YES, it is one of the options we have.

“My rep is a Dem who is regularly reelected in a conservative district. He does this by being known and trusted, even by the “opposition”. Nader can’t knock on enough doors to become personally known, no presidential aspirant can.”

My perspective: Nader is ALREADY a household name to most people over the age of 45. This is a huge voting block and one more likely to vote. In addition, in this group Nader is well regarded. Although, there is a resurgence of young voters for Nader also.

“And why is Nader not trying to form a coalition with other minor parties?

Other parties..? Should the dem and repubs, converge…? They have a lot in common, they could just “pool” those corporate funds and have one big party…no…

Well! I am certainly not jumping into the “defend Nader” morass that seems to have developed here—I am not even voting for him. But, here goes, anyway—hehe.

Nobody ever really lost an election to Nader, either. The Dem Party loses because, they refuse to fight—when the CBC tried to get Gore to fight the 2000 Supreme Court decision as W & Co. appointed the SC members children and grand c , to 6 figure postitions in govt.

It is Reconstruction era law, that is intended to stop racial discrimination.

“The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race.” The
[edit]
The record suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county.”

THIS is the problem! It was ridiculous to rule that way, as, that is the way the system is set up!

And, the Democratic Party has done nothing to correct it.Other civilized countries are amazed when they find out that we do not have a federal voting, balloting system. And, yes, I DO think that things wouldve been slightly different under Gore—it just does not follow that that is Nader’s fault. (Boy, I’m winning no friends here!) We wil never know. Katrina wouldve been handled differently-(I’m tying it in here, Folktruther—lol)

It was probably THE day, that, I lost all “faith” that the govt gave a DAMN about anyone—anything but money. As Folk says, you hate to believe that your parent/govt/party/teacher will torture, abuse or ignore you. But, at some point, you just have to admit it.

Also, they appeal only to a small part of the electorate and, they have a deep desire to amass power and money. And, that is simply what it is ( You dont need to vote against them to acknowledge it!)

The division in this election was perfectly predictable. That ia not always bad, but it is when the people have no rememdy.

I am glad to hear someone quote Freud again. “Everybody hates Freud” is a large club. But, after al the horrible things I heard about him, and psychoanalysis—I had one professor who convinced me to look a ittle deeper imto his theories. He was the first to even suggest a “subconcious”! Where would all modern theory (besides, “give ‘em a pill”) be without it?

It’s true that children (and, often, those unburdened by tradtional “education”) have a innate sense of , shall we say, “that is bullshit”. If your mind says, “Wait! That doesnt seem right!”, I always think that it is best to give it a listen.

For ex., a child who grows up with an alcoholic parent, is very hard to lie to about drinking. It has become a matter of survival for them to know—how will this person be responding to me now? Can I trust them?

People are often told that they are “being ridiculous” or that they are “crazy”.

When it carries over into adulthood, people become terrified at the very prospect of standing up to the “know all and be all”. It is not surprising—their very survival seems to depend on it. But, in actuality, their moving beyond simple survival depends on something very different—responding to their inner truth. WHY is this causing my inner self ot say, “Hey, wait a minute! Havent we been here before?”.

Not that people do not “split” from reality. But, it happens far less than the powers that be would like for you to think.

Outraged, the objection of Scheer, Jackpine, etc that Nader has not helped build a party is a reasonable point. He is an honest liberal, but indepedenent liberals are no substitute for a mobilized movement. Which would not be based on one person. That is one reason why I favor McKinney. But I live in Calif where voting for McKinney does not threaten the election of McPalin.

***

I’ve known a number of Marine officers and none of them were blockheads. Certainly Ritter isn’t. I disagreed with them all but they were not stupid.

Your comment: “Inherit’s last post is a good illustration of this identification with power rather than people. He states explicitly that he admires the tactics, strategy and effectiveness of the neocons, if not their politics. But their strategy is part of their politics, Inherit merely wants to adapt them to the Dem wing of the Dem-Gop bloc. As does Syrena, et al.”

Thank you Folktruther, I agree. This mentality qualifies corruption and praises debasement. The net outcome is exactly as Nader points out, they become increasingly representative of what they claim to be against.

It really doesn’t matter to me if Nader makes Obama look like a schmuck. You seem to be falling into the Bushite logic: if you’re not with us then you’re against us. Have i ever come here and praised Obama unconditionally? Did you not read that i am no Democrat?

I’m sorry, but i have better things to do than dig through the internet to refind all the things i’ve read which have created my feelings about Nader. I’ll simply say that i’ve read what people who’ve worked for him said about working for him. And it wouldn’t matter if i did prove that he’s a pompous jackass, you wouldn’t concede the argument.

But let’s get to a deeper point. I do believe in “third” parties; unfortunately, Nader isn’t a party, he’s an individual. He seems unconcerned with building a network that might produce change beyond his aspirations.

And i notice that you disregarded the question about HOW Nader proposes to implement the changes he envisions.

Remember that i’m not trying to convince you to vote for Obama; nor would i attempt to convince you to vote in any which way, as voting is a personal decision. You, on the other hand, are attempting to get all of us to vote a certain way so the burden is on you to answer our questions and explain things.

It should also be noted that the more Naderites resemble proselytizing evangelicals, the less likely many of us are to listen to them.

Finally, if the system is rigged against third parties then the only way to get third parties involved is to change the system. Do you really think that the best way to go about that is to elect a president only? Wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the House, where candidates can be successful on a personal level? My rep is a Dem who is regularly reelected in a conservative district. He does this by being known and trusted, even by the “opposition”. Nader can’t knock on enough doors to become personally known, no presidential aspirant can.

And why is Nader not trying to form a coalition with other minor parties?

Your comment: “They’ll whine and weep that “it’s not fair!” how Ralph is cut out of the election and the debates.”

So… according to you, Ralph Nader IS “cut out of the election and the debates” and somehow you come to the conclusion that saying that this isn’t fair is whining..? Obviously your determination of what is fair and what is not is as suspect as your determination of “worthiness”.

I was however, glad to here this: “So I’m not arguing with the Naderites anymore.” Of course you’ve made this promise before and haven’t kept it, so I won’t hold my breath.

“As a fellow Republican who had voted for President George W. Bush,....” Scott Ritter

Say it ain’t so, Joe. How could anyone whose opinion I respect vote for or admit to have voted for George W. Bush… I think the tip off was the Ritter is an ex-marine, and marine’s are blockheads. ——————————————————————————-
I know some very politically perspicuous people, Republicans, who voted for Bush in 2000 and even 2004. From our standpoint, it’s hard to imagine. But by as early as 2006 some of these people became some of the Bush Administation’s strongest opponemnts. It’s hard to shake off an ideology one was raised to believe in no matter how much evidence is against it.

But yeah, Marines do tend to be blockheads, so that might be part of it.

What the HELL has this asshole actually done fo rthis country SINCE Covairs and Seatbelts . Nadar is riding on ancient History just like McCain. Ralph You haven’t done Shit for US in nearly 40 yrs, except help Steal votes from the Democratic Candidate. Ralph Should hav efound himslef a Hole after he Fucked US by throwing the Election towards W…If it had not been close, Cheneycorp Would have had a harder time STEALING IT. Ralph Nadar has as Much Blood on his hands as this Adminstration- Hadit not been for his Assistance, they Never would have Won, We’d Never would have invaded Iraq ( Or probably be stuck in the cluster fuck called Afghanistan too). Had it not been For Nadar, We would have had a Stop gap in the WH to the economic Treason which has transpired over the last 8 yrs!
So Ralphy Boy had better Slither back into the Hole the RNC purchased You With and lay Low…Americans are looking to Review ALL factors which contributed to this Admins High Crimes.And It all starts with the Highjacked ‘00 election, and WHO aided and abetted in Pushing that Domino over to begin With!

Inherit’s last post is a good illustration of this identification with power rather than people. He states explicitly that he admires the tactics, strategy and effectiveness of the neocons, if not their politics. But their strategy is part of their politics, Inherit merely wants to adapt them to the Dem wing of the Dem-Gop bloc. As does Syrena, et al.

The neocon strategy is effective because of the alliance of the neolibs and Zionists in the US ruling class. They have provided the money and support for a thirty year program that has taken over the US power system. It is a kind of stateless postmodern fascism that promotes bipartisan war abroad and a police state at home.

Progressives are meanwhile atomized and disunited, restricted by the ideological chains that bind them to an ineffective opposition. The historical function of the Dems is to PREVENT the progressive population from uniting and mobilizing, just as they helped kill the peace movement by coopting its leaders.

This began during the Cold War, BEFORE the War on Communism morphed into the War on Terrorism. The British historian, Francis Conors Saunders documents in WHO PAID THE PIPER? how the CIA and other foundations funded progressives and liberals to develop their ideology against Communism, marxism and socialism.

The legacy inhibits progressives today from forming a counter opposition to the neocon fascism that is engulfing us today. It is a major historical reason that the American people identify with murderous American power and cannot oppose it.

Cyrena,
You are wasting your time arguing with Outraged and Elizabethe. I decided it was like arguing with a creationist.

They believe what they believe and they won’t let facts clutter up “the truth”.

Outraged continues to insist that Nader was instrumental in creating the Freedom Of Information Act yet cannot show 1 piece of evidence to prove it. He keeps quoting from the Nader web sites which say…
nader was instrumental in getting FOIA passed….a circular argument.

He also says “Public Citizen” was involved in getting FOIA passed, but FOIA passed in 1966 and “Public Citizen” was founded in 1971.

When I pointed this out he merely reposted his list of supposed Nader accomplishments.

So I’m not arguing with the Naderites anymore. They’ll whine and weep that “it’s not fair!” how Ralph is cut out of the election and the debates.

Yet somehow crackpot right-wingers get into it and get pretty far, in fact, as far as the GOP VP nominee.

Why?

Because the nutty right-wing KNOWS HOW TO ORGANIZE! They have spent 30+ years building an effective grass-roots machine with patience, persistence and determination, through election cycle after election cycle, at school boards in Bumfuck, Idaho, and town boards in Wasilla, Alaska and county governments in Backwater County, Alabama. They gerrymandered in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and Texas. (PA has far more GOP seats than the population, which is far more Democratic, justifies—all due to careful gerrymandering).

I admire their tactics and strategy and effectiveness, if not their politics.

I believe lowering yourself to the enemies level is not how to win, but when it is “harmless” insult, maybe it is worth it.

The Democrats had the gall to throw a pie in Nader’s face in his own office, a public interest but private attorney. Nader is highly prestigeous because he accomplished triumphs for the public against the BIG BOYS as he called them. Corporate Giants think their profit rules the world and the public believes them.

In the movie, “An Unreasonable Man” all the featured speakers showed themselves unappreciative of all of Nader’s accomplishments as if he shouldn’t have tried.

NADER believes the public should at least have self-preservation instincts. Running to the bad guys’umbrella of a supposed two party system that does not exist except in office and is failing in front of everyone is not protection. Our U.S. Constitution cannot support or contain it. Only character and conscience by honest politics will support a government provided in our document that describes a true democracy with safeguards. The decision of war is not for one person without the proper information before Congress. A usurper of proper democracy used his ingenuity to invade a country without proper authority, and circumvented all proper legal authorities, and got those authorities to believe they had supported him, when they had no clue as to why he was doing it.

If the voters want democracy and true majority rule, they are going to have to do simple high school level homework of researching the ABC’s of each candidate: A-the education; B-the accomplishments in the public interest to show ability to deliver on the promises; C-platforms offered. Every voter should compare the ABC’s of the SIX candidates and decide which one is BEST to put this country ON TRACK for upholding our democracy defined in the Constitution. The SIX candidates: Baldwin, Constitutional Party, Barr, Libertarian Party, McCain, Republican Party, McKinney, Green Party, Nader, Independent Candidate, and Obama, Democrat Party.

The media wants no voters to net a landslide.

Gore didn’t want Nader in the picture in 2000. Why? Nader might win. I do not believe Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I hope the committee making the award would be shocked to know Gore will not allow the proper international law for peace upheld, and the ABM Treaty is being held up due to the likes of Gore. Some political criminals do not appreciate the sky is the limit, and sanity has a place in proper politics.

The Democrats entered Nader’s office and threw a whipped cream huge chocolate pudding pie in his face - the man who did it was dressed in grey suit with a white shirt and tie. Nader had been engrossed in work at his desk. Whoever stood there and filmed it was heinous as was the business looking pie thrower. Democrats hoped to suggest they OWN American Democracy and there is no such thing as an outside challenge. I have dubbed them the premier Anti-Democracy Party. The Gores, Kerrys and now Obamas all deserve a cherry pie in their Democrat Party faces.

Even ballgames have umpires who shout foul when foul is attempted as if valid, the fans go wild.

Impact of the red ink and red blood is the Democrats’ to take the pie in the face, all three have no qualms about destroying the voters’ faith in democracy and the country. They care little for ability to show honor and criminal laws enforced where the CEOS go to jail, and Presidents get impeached for usurping the government and the authority of Congress with hoodwinking which is not a joke.

(Gore is not for getting rid of nukes. When a candidate cannot understand obvious honorable leadership on track, the public should recognize it handily.)

Outraged, I read it before. And, because it was such double talk, (typical for lawyers AND politicians) by claiming that Scheer has contradicted himself, when in fact Nader doesn’t address the point, I went back and read it again. What points to you want me to get?

So, I’ve read it three times now. I’m generally not dense, so I would expect to ‘get it’ if it were clear. It is not.

Scheer says that he’s not blaming Nader for NOT being a political organizer, even though others (like Debb) HAVE BUILT 3rd parties but haven’t been so successful in producing candidates.

Am I following this so far? If so, that is incorrect. What would be more correct, would be to say that so far, 3rd parties, (or 4th, 5th, 6th parties) have not produced a president. THAT would be more correct. Please don’t try to bullshit me into believing something other than what my eyes can see, and other parties have been on ballots for a very long time, and that includes THIS ballot.

So is this where Scheer supposedly contradicts himself? Well, he doesn’t. In fact, Nader puts words in his mouth. NADER says that he’s contradicting himself, when he says this…

• “…You say, on one hand the system is rigged against third parties. And then you said why aren’t you building a third party?..”

However, Scheer didn’t say that THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST THIRD PARTIES. Scheer said THIS..

• “I don’t think we’re going to have a third party. But I’m just saying to discuss it as if it exists when It doesn’t exist.”

So, here’s my read of this. Scheer doesn’t think that a ‘3rd party exists.” (again, I disagree, but set that aside for a moment). Then Nader comes up with ‘THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST THIRD PARTIES”.

Well ya know, that is about as rhetorically subjective as one can get. It’s also a lame bullshit excuse. So, I’m not buying the stuff about the system being rigged against a 3rd party, when I’ve been part of a huge (and so far successful) movement to remake the Democratic Party. And for those who can think beyond one channel, THAT is the same as a 3rd party!! Only anal people have troubles when something changes its character, without changing its name, or vice versa. And no, none of it happens overnight. But, I damn sure know that working from within the system is the only way to make any significant changes. Nader has made it clear that he will not do that.

Let’s face it, the guy has no respect for a Congressional body, and that just HAPPENS to be the way the political system is set up. We HAVE Independents in Congress, so what exactly is it that’s holding Nader back, except HIMSELF, and the fact that he holds the ENTIRE system in contempt? I mean please. What exactly has prevented him from running for political office as an Independent? It hasn’t stopped Bernie Sanders. I’d vote for him if he ran. Now I’m really sorry that they didn’t give Nader a chance to debate. He would have had that opportunity, (like ALL of the other candidates did at the beginning) if he had chosen to take part in the system. But he’d rather turn up his nose at it, while at the same time complaining that it’s ‘rigged’. Bullshit. Nader is like the person who wants a PhD, but doesn’t wanna go through the work to get it. He can’t build a movement or a political party just by offering up some ideas (that a few hundred other thousand people have) and just expect that everybody is gonna fall at his feet.
So, if that was your point, (that it’s all ‘the system’s’ fault) then obviously, it didn’t elude me, it’s just an arrogance and lame ass excuse that I don’t accept. It’s really lame to ‘blame it on the system’ that he refuses to work to change.

Your comment: “This is SUCH a perfect example of what I mean about the obstinate ego of Mr. Nader. It’s the arrogance of assumption that says that if people ‘voted their conscience’ they’d vote for HIM. WHY does he think that? Because of ‘people’ saying this or that? WHAT people? Is he deluding himself?

Obviously YOU are making “assumptions” here. Where is it written that Nader makes the (in your words) “arrogance of assumption that says that if people ‘voted their conscience’ they’d vote for HIM.” This is something YOU feel. However, your interpretation, is only that…. YOUR interpretation. If your interpretation is valid, PROVE IT. Again…. PROVE IT.

My… how you do go on with the BS. You said “And, sad as it is to say, NOBODY would be in trouble with anti-trust laws”.... of course this is NOT what Nader said…. is it? Let’s look…. (Nader’s comment) “And the two parties take advantage of that. And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws.”

There you have it. Do we need to go on and on and on and on and on, Obama and McCain are willing to sell the American People down the river, via corporate interests, and they’ve BOTH proved it.

What….do you need a 2x4 upside the head….? I’m bewildered as to the support of EITHER of the two front runners. I have noticed that “selling bridges” is apparently, in season.

Your comment: “This goes hand in hand with another comment from you, wondering exactly HOW he was going to accomplish all that he claims. (he has no plan). And, after 20 years of running for president every four, one might assume that if in fact he was interested in actually building a party or a movement, he would have done it by now.

DAMN… you must have missed this portion of MY post, I bolded it, so that the POINT, wouldn’t go unacknowledged… Well… it seems it HAS eluded your acknowledgement. I’ll post it, again.

“Scheer: No, I’m attacking you for not being a political organizer. Say in the tradition of Debbs, who would at least build a party, build the party; we had third-party candidates that haven’t been all that successful, but that have built. And I’m not singling you out. I didn’t want you to run. So I don’t hold you responsible. I don’t think we’re going to have a third party. But I’m just saying to discuss it as if it exists when It doesn’t exist, and now you’re even considering a third campaign. What could possibly come out of such a campaign?

Nader: You see you’re contradicting yourself. You say, on one hand the system is rigged against third parties. And then you said why aren’t you building a third party? You’re right. The system is rigged against the third party. It keeps third-party candidates even if the polls want them on national presidential debates off the presidential debates because the debate commission is a private corporation created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Party. They don’t want any competition. So the system is rigged in the ballot access; it’s rigged in a thousand ways. It’s rigged because most Americans are prisoners of a 220-year-old Electoral College, two-party, winner-take-all, system. And so they want to be for winners. So you can’t start from the small base and try to grow. Because even people who agree with you, and if you poll-tested our platform in 2000 and 2004, a very many of them had majority poll support. They want to be with the winner. People can say “I really like what you’re doing, and I’d like to vote for you, but I want to support a winner.” You get this in 40 states that were either slam-dunk Republican or Democrat. I’d be in Texas and people would say, “ I really like what you’re doing, but I don’t want Mr. Bush to win. And so I have to vote for John Kerry.” In Texas, you have to vote for John Kerry? Kerry never even campaigned in Texas. There were 40 states where people could have voted their conscience but the system is a prison. It is an imprisoning system. It makes people feel like there’s no chance for the little guy. There’s no chance for the underdog. And the two parties take advantage of that. And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws. So, what we have done in these campaigns is we’ve given people an opportunity to vote for what they believe in. We have gotten a lot of young people trained in political activity. You’ll hear from them as they go into politics. And take civic and political leadership positions. We kept the progressive agenda alive. I mean, how many four years do you go through before you have a whole new generation who can’t even argue for the estate tax, or progressive taxation, or Social security if you don’t keep that flame alive?”

Your comment: “I’m still not voting for Nader because i’ve never seen any indication that he’s anything but a pompous jackass.

Well…you see jackpine, it’s just that “pompous jackass” portion of your comment that’s revealing. Nader just happens to MAKE OBAMA LOOK LIKE A SMUCK. Too bad, so sad. You blame Nader for this….? A smuck’s a smuck. It’s those revealing little “jabs”. You know… the ones you either WON’T or DON’T address, that leaves your logic…well… lacking. Prove it.

Yes, KDelphi, like a communal Stockholm syndrome. People are indoctrinated from childhood to have a basic trust of authorized power. That authority is there to protect them, like their parents did.
This is what Freud in FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION attibutes religious delusions to. People want someone to protect them in adulthood like their parents did when they were young. And people not only have illusions about Divine power but about earthly power as well. As Freud says:

“Having recognized religious doctines as illusions, we are at once faced by a further question: many not other cultural assents of which we hold a high opinion and by which we let our lives by ruled be of a similar nature? May not the assumptions that determine our political regulations be called illusions as well?”

We are indoctrinated by these power delusions not only by religion but by political and scientific theory as well. The generate the delusuve worldviews that the Educated classes impose on the population to legitimate their power. So we can’t believe the reality based truth that conflicts with what we have identified with from childhood.

that is why the chief difficulty in telling the reality truth is not intellectual ignorance, but emotional denial. People will not believe reality truths that subvert the power delusions with which they identify.

Therefore the American people can’t generally believe that the American power structure would murder, imprison, toruture or exploit them. Just as the Jews in Germany couldn’t believe that their national leaders would murder them. Elected leaders rely on this belief in the goodness of power to steal a trilliion dollars from us and give it to the powerful.

Outraged quotes from Nader:
• “There were 40 states where people could have voted their conscience but the system is a prison. It is an imprisoning system. It makes people feel like there’s no chance for the little guy. There’s no chance for the underdog. And the two parties take advantage of that. And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws.”

This is SUCH a perfect example of what I mean about the obstinate ego of Mr. Nader. It’s the arrogance of assumption that says that if people ‘voted their conscience’ they’d vote for HIM. WHY does he think that? Because of ‘people’ saying this or that? WHAT people? Is he deluding himself?

He says that there is no chance for the ‘little guy’ or the ‘underdog’ and the Barack Obama campaign has exposed those words as a total falsehood.

And, sad as it is to say, NOBODY would be in trouble with anti-trust laws, because the 16 year long republican rule hasn’t prosecuted ANY of the corporations that have violated the anti-trust laws of the past 25 years. They don’t get into trouble with breaking any anti-trust laws, and there are multiple examples of that, in multiple industries, including the commercial airline industry, the telecommunications industry, and I’m sure you all can site others.

Deregulation basically nullified anti-trust laws, or at least provided enough loopholes for all of them to drive a truck through.

Thanks for this Jackpine. It’s difficult for me to understand how others haven’t noticed.

• “…So my question becomes: is Ralph Nader trying to empower us or just himself? Is he trying to build a real third way or is this about him? “
This goes hand in hand with another comment from you, wondering exactly HOW he was going to accomplish all that he claims. (he has no plan). And, after 20 years of running for president every four, one might assume that if in fact he was interested in actually building a party or a movement, he would have done it by now. So, I wonder as well, will he simply dismiss Congress and become a benevolent dictator? This is the reason why some call him an egomaniac, which is perfectly understandable, no matter how offended his ‘followers’ might be. I so hate the cult or group-think mentality, but that’s all that Nader can muster up. It’s all about swallowing the kool-aid without even a fine print disclaimer. Question any of it, (they way we question or grill others) and all of the followers get all bent out of shape. Like, ‘how dare we question him’?
The environment doesn’t lend itself to such a mentality these days.

• “..it will take more than disaster to kill the Dem-Gop party. People tend to identify with their own oppression and the oppression of other people. They identify with oppressive power rather than the people ruled by power…”

Here’s where you’re at least partially wrong Folktruther, though it might not be your fault. Ironically though, it’s the reason why the very thing you suggest (people uniting against power) is so difficult to accomplish. You underestimate the goings on of anything outside your own limited sphere. In other words, if ‘you’ aren’t aware of it, then it must not be happening.

The REALITY however, is that there are millions of people around, who are VERY MUCH aware of this power structure, without ‘identifying’ themselves with the oppressive nature of it, aside from the knowledge of how it works to oppress so many. So, you make assumptions here which in the long run, the weaker or already long oppressed WILL eventually take as truth. That is with the exception of those who know better, and have learned to keep their own counsel until such time as to prove you to a false and negative prophet in this regard. By then though, people like you become victims of the backlash as well. Again, because you make rhetorical assumptions, and when they prove false, you’re caught off guard.

Some of your theory still holds a certain amount of basic truth, like this:

• “And power is united and the people are disunited. All power structures separate, isolate and alienate people from each other in order to rule.”

Pretty simple stuff here. It’s divide and rule. We’ve all read the books. But you haven’t been out in the field, (or out of your armchair) in what appears to be several decades. Without anything more than the rhetoric, and the theory, it’s all worthless. More dangerous is that it ‘assumes’ things that you don’t know, and can’t know without covering some ground in reality. It doesn’t appear that you’re ready, willing, or able to do that.

For instance, even right here in your same state, there are communities that totally defy your claims here. That shouldn’t be a surprise, since there are tons of student communities throughout the country, and at least some of them ARE paying attention, and mobilizing. Others just talk about it. Still, even a cursory glance at history would seem to incline one to at least consider that there are things going on that you might be unaware of.

You also seem to disregard the rather large movement that has mobilized behind the Obama campaign. Maybe because you want to, or maybe because you just really are out of touch. Same can be said for the PDA that so many people on this forum have pooh-poohed, but who continue to make progress despite that.

In fact, it’s pretty amazing for me to listen to all of you howling about a so-called 3rd party, when that is happening in your midst. Fortunately, it continues despite all of you.

Fenwick, I had the same reaction when I read those words from Scott that he had voted for George Bush. Somehow, this really is a problem for me. It’s even odd that he admitted it. Hard for me to believe that anyone would.

Quit preaching to the choir. I’ve been vocal about my distaste for both parties for a long, long time. I’m not a democrat…nor will i ever be a democrat. (personally, i’ll never belong to any political party) I’m all for third parties, proportional representation, etc.

I’m still not voting for Nader because i’ve never seen any indication that he’s anything but a pompous jackass. (The only presidential candidate who will ever get my enthusiastic vote is the candidate who doesn’t want to be President.)

And like i said before, until McCain nominated Palin i was voting third party (but not for Nader). And if McCain was 10 years younger i’d still be voting for a third party. Hell, i may still because i’m quickly reaching the point where i don’t care. The mess we’re in is bigger than Obama, McCain and Nader could fix, combined. But i’m still not voting for Nader.

I’ve been to his site, and i (mostly) agree. But what i note is that there is no mention of HOW he plans to achieve the goals he lays out. But apparently all we have to do is elect him and all these goals will miraculously happen. What’s he going to do, dissolve Congress and become a benevolent dictator?

Speaking as someone who has met both men, I would not be so quick to assert that Obama is no JFK. Nor do I think JFK himself would have felt that way. Rather, I expect that he would have regarded Obama as an extraordinarily skilled political leader with the potential to be a great president.

Needed: Alternative media organization dedicated to covering alternative political parties in the USA with legitimate journalism and professional standards. Can provide video and audio to other media organizations, and be a one-stop shop for third party news stories.

When will such a network form (when we’re being rounded up into camps?)

This could start on the web and branch out into radio, cable tv and documentary films.

Troublesum, it will take more than disaster to kill the Dem-Gop party. People tend to identify with their own oppression and the oppression of other people. They identify with oppressive power rather than the people ruled by power.

And power is united and the people are disunited. All power structures separate, isolate and alienate people from each other in order to rule. They have to because the ruling class is only about 1% of the population, and the professional class perhaps only another 10%.

So the people must unite to oppose power. And we can only do so if we believe the same things, some ideology that can keep us united enough to win a historical political struggle. We don’t possess that, and we have to develop it to unite the populaton. In the meantime, the Dem-Gop party led by neocon-lib policies will prevail. And drive the population into the ground.

One good result of the economic disaster is that the democratic party will be finally dead when the people it claims to represent realize that it did nothing to help them and instead was concerned only with wall street. When that happens then there will be some hope of having a political party to oppose the money party.

“Nader: OK. Let’s hold the Democratic Party up to an opposition role. What could they have stopped that they didn’t stop. They could have stopped the war. They could have stopped the tax cuts for the rich. They could have stopped any number of things, whether by filibuster, by raising the standard high and mobilizing public opinion when the polls were on their side on so many of these things, like tax cuts for the rich. He got through three of them. While he is building a huge deficit, he got through three of them. That’s never happened in the middle of hostilities in the American history. They always raised taxes, excess profit taxes, to pay for the war. The Democrats controlled the Senate when the first big tax cut came through in 2002. Where were they? They just didn’t have the guts to stop it. Let’s take the Supreme Court, Bob. I was up there lobbying against Bork, and it was a success; it was a great coalition. I was up there lobbying against [Justice Antonin] Scalia. And I would ask Al Gore, and I would ask Ted Kennedy, and Paul Sarbanes, all these great senators: “You’re going to vote for Scalia?” “Well, he’s going to win anyway.” But I said, “You know, I can’t find a senator, not one senator, to vote against Scalia.” And he wasn’t hiding his candle under a barrel during the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Scalia was confirmed 98 to nothing. So then, in comes Thomas. And George Mitchell, the Democratic majority leader, sitting in his office, and we’re going in one senator’s office after another ... and it was really close. And of course Bush called Thomas the most qualified nominee that he could find and he was the heir to the seat of Thurgood Marshall. And so, we would go in one senator after another, say “Is Mitchell really twisting arms here? Is he using his power?” “No. he’s letting us decide. He’s not leading the way against Thomas.” And the vote was 52-48. Eleven Democratic senators crossed the aisle and voted for Thomas. So when we evaluate the Democrats in their oppositional role, what have they stopped? Now, the Democrats see nothing wrong with the anti-civil libertarian of knocking the third party, or independent candidates, off the ballot in the most vicious ways. You know, when you run for office, you’re running for free speech, petition, and assembly. And that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of liberal Democrats. They liked Buchanan running, didn’t they? But they didn’t want our voters to have a chance to vote for the candidates of their choice. Not by arguing with us, or having a better platform, no. But by maneuvering these state laws that the Republicans and Democrats have enacted, to get us off the ballot. In more than a few states. I don’t consider that a civil liberties position. That’s one of the last remaining areas of political bigotry that don’t raise the hackles of the ACLU. When you deny the right of candidates to be on the ballot by harassment and phony litigation and all these partisan state ballot access laws, you are denying millions of voters their choice.”

Nader continues:
“....Let’s have a little higher expectation level here, and a higher urgency level. Everything that Robert said should be done, but it’s not enough. I played this game 20 years. The least-worst game. Reagan, [Jimmy] Carter—that was a choice. But then I went for Mondale, [Michael] Dukakis, on and on, the least worst. They shut us down. They shut all these citizen groups down. We couldn’t get hearings from the Democrats when they controlled Congress. We couldn’t get agency petitions on serious health and safety matters like hazardous drugs and contaminated food, and unsafe cars. They shut down the government. On citizen groups all over Washington. Not just ours.”

I liked the Hitchens article. Sure we are resembling a third-world country more every day, even as third world countries such as China and India acquire first-world institutions. But I do believe that our society is not so far gone that recovery is not possible. People are waking up. There’s still lots of good Americans out there.

Would you mind leaving the “t” out of my last name? It bugs me a little bit. It’s Tony Wicher. Thanks.

“Scheer: If there was a serious alternative that was emerging, that had come out of your campaign, that we could rally around, then one could say, “OK, that’s a way to go.” But it doesn’t exist. All that we have left after your two campaigns is Ralph Nader.

Nader: No, not at all.

Scheer: Yes. That’s all we have.

Nader: No, not at all.

Scheer: We don’t have a movement. There’s no Green movement. There’s not third-party movement. You didn’t build anything; you didn’t leave any legacy electorally. Electorally, you left it in all sorts of ways. But you have not provided a model of political action. You have not.

Nader: Bob, I’m really amazed that you are attacking me for not being omnipotent.

Scheer: No, I’m attacking you for not being a political organizer. Say in the tradition of Debbs, who would at least build a party, build the party; we had third-party candidates that haven’t been all that successful, but that have built. And I’m not singling you out. I didn’t want you to run. So I don’t hold you responsible. I don’t think we’re going to have a third party. But I’m just saying to discuss it as if it exists when It doesn’t exist, and now you’re even considering a third campaign. What could possibly come out of such a campaign?

Nader: You see you’re contradicting yourself. You say, on one hand the system is rigged against third parties. And then you said why aren’t you building a third party? You’re right. The system is rigged against the third party. It keeps third-party candidates even if the polls want them on national presidential debates off the presidential debates because the debate commission is a private corporation created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Party. They don’t want any competition. So the system is rigged in the ballot access; it’s rigged in a thousand ways. It’s rigged because most Americans are prisoners of a 220-year-old Electoral College, two-party, winner-take-all, system. And so they want to be for winners. So you can’t start from the small base and try to grow. Because even people who agree with you, and if you poll-tested our platform in 2000 and 2004, a very many of them had majority poll support. They want to be with the winner. People can say “I really like what you’re doing, and I’d like to vote for you, but I want to support a winner.” You get this in 40 states that were either slam-dunk Republican or Democrat. I’d be in Texas and people would say, “ I really like what you’re doing, but I don’t want Mr. Bush to win. And so I have to vote for John Kerry.” In Texas, you have to vote for John Kerry? Kerry never even campaigned in Texas. There were 40 states where people could have voted their conscience but the system is a prison. It is an imprisoning system. It makes people feel like there’s no chance for the little guy. There’s no chance for the underdog. And the two parties take advantage of that. And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws. So, what we have done in these campaigns is we’ve given people an opportunity to vote for what they believe in. We have gotten a lot of young people trained in political activity. You’ll hear from them as they go into politics. And take civic and political leadership positions. We kept the progressive agenda alive. I mean, how many four years do you go through before you have a whole new generation who can’t even argue for the estate tax, or progressive taxation, or Social security if you don’t keep that flame alive?”

I agree with your analysis concerning the consequences of deregulation Inherit The Wind, but what I’m “calling” for is an elimination of the character deficit that is endemic, systemic and epidemic in our culture. I am no fan of naked capitalism, it is a horror to imagine. However, I have reverence for markets and respect market intelligence. What I am calling for is a cultural revolution. ——————————————————————————
floydw,

I think I understand you. Let me put it this way: if every member of society were virtuous and socially responsible, we would need neither criminal laws nor market regulations. For capitalists, the bottom line would not be profit but how well they are serving the interests of society. No one would have to tell them to pay their workers well, to provide safe working conditions, to make a safe, quality product or to sell it at a price that people could afford rather than what the market would bear. There actually are many non-greedy capitalists and that is exactly what they do. Regulations exist to control greedy capitalists who lack social responsibility, just as criminal laws exist only to control criminals, not socially reponsible people with a conscience who would never commit a criminal act.
If everybody were socially responsible, we wouldn’t have any social problems. In the long run, yes, we must progress toward a more civilized society, and that means a society whose citizens are more socially responsible. But in the short run, we have all kinds of crooks to deal with.

Society depends on the existence of a fair number of socially responsible citizens. If greed and corruption become the norm, society collapses. That is what is happening now. Our society has taught that greed is good, that stepping on others to get to the top is good, and what we are seeing now is the consequence of those values. But because society is collapsing, the conditions are right for a moral reawakening. That in fact has been Obama’s message.
Kucinich has been saying the same thing.

Well, good for Ralph. I support his efforts to organize. My only objection to Nader is that his running for President splits the progressive vote. I don’t understand why he would not be much more effective doing his organizing as part of the Democratic party. We would love to have him and his dedicated followers. As far as local elections go, if I ever have an opportunity to vote for a Green or Peace and Freedom candidate I think has a significant chance to win, and the person running seems to me more qualified for the job than the Democrat, I promise to vote for him. So far I have not had that opportunity.

floydw—I understand what you are saying, and you make some good points. ( I am not in favor of capitalism, so I have problems with “reverence for the mkts…and respect mkt intelligence..”) It sounds like it is right out of the Chicago School’s play book, a theory that, although not followed completely “purely”, has us where we are today.

How in the world would one eliminate character defects? I dont think that most of us see ourselves reflected in these strange people in power (Bush, CEOs, etc.)and the situation IS already intolerable. The amounts of money just make your eyes glaze over! Most people wouldnt even know what to do with it!

I think that the PROBLEM is the reverence for the market.The “market” should serve the peopel, not the other way around. “WE” made the mkt, we should dismantle it , if it now longer serves the public good.

I do not belive that most people are “self-regulating”. I think that , when people are born with a “silver spoon”, there is little incentive to give a damn what anyone else thinks. I agree that it is a cultural matter, especially in the uS. (“Greed is good” ad nauseum).But, after watching Paulson, Cox, etc. and, the CEOS of these multi-natls. , I see shame holding no sway whatsoever , on their actions. Congress did not even force any of them to truly take reponsibility. These Capts, of Industry,seem to think taht they rule the universe, and they just do not understand, nor care.

There are people who just do not respond to shame, and the common people need protected from them. Otherwise, it’s just Social Darwinism.

Unless you buy into Friedman or Keynes, there are alot of problems with a “free market”, which leaves the majority of people at the mercy of these character flaws, of people born into power. As Martin J. Whitman said, criticizing the above, “The free mkt. is probably doomed to failure if there exists persons not subject to external discipiines by various forces over and above competititon”. He mentions exorbitant executive compensation, poorly financed businesses, speculative bubbbles and tendencies towards monopoly, and corruption.

So, it seems that the tendency towards corruption would have to be eliminated first. For people “born into privilege”, I dont see the incentive. POwer never gives up anything, voluntarily. Even when it fails horribly, the people do not seem to have the incentive to restrict it.

I agree with your analysis concerning the consequences of deregulation Inherit The Wind, but what I’m “calling” for is an elimination of the character deficit that is endemic, systemic and epidemic in our culture. I am no fan of naked capitalism, it is a horror to imagine. However, I have reverence for markets and respect market intelligence. What I am calling for is a cultural revolution. Our current crisis is rooted in a flawed ideology; that ideology in turn requires a certain culture to engender and sustain it; culture and ideas require individuals from which to draw vitality, and achieve the currency necessary for manifestation.

The essences of my theorem is essentially that the present crisis is rooted in our cultural norms; that glorify greed; exalt materiality as a measure of success and promote competition between entities that would be best served through cooperation. By emphasizing certain norms — avarice, for instance — our culture engenders certain character traits, which in turn motivate individuals to positions of power — in government, and on Wall St. — and in turn create the kinds of fiascos we have now. Main St. tolerates it because we see ourselves reflected in it. Under different norms this kind of behavior would simply be intolerable.

Under more virtuous cultural norms, society would be self-regulating and not require external powers to impose stringent regulation under threat of force. Shame is a very powerful emotion and motivator, so is honor. If the villains of the current debacle were cast into shame by virtue of their conduct, rather than exalted as the magi of the financial universe, our current crisis would be relegated to the realm of potential, as something that might have happened but never did.

I’m not calling for anarchy in the conventional, popular sense. Under the kind of anarchy I imagine, noble ideas and virtue reign supreme, the need for external authority is significantly diminished because society becomes effectively self-regulating.

In 2000 Nader travelled to nearly every state meeting with local green candidates and introducing thousands of people to that party on a local and state level. If that is not party building I’d like to know what the hell it is. As a result of the 2000 race, the Green party has been running in many city and state wide elections. Nader’s running mate almost won the mayor’s race in San Francisco two years ago. In a three way race he came in a close second.

When people say they will vote for Nader only when there are 50 third party senators and at least 300 congressmen and 25 governors they are saying that they like things the way they are.

There was no “full slate” of republican candidates in office prior to Lincoln’s victory in 1860. For all practical purposes Lincoln founded the republican party. Prior to his victory it consisted of a few people who didn’t know where to go after the demise of the whig party.

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who dislikes our two parties more than me. As i also said in the post you quoted, i’ve voted third party; it’s what i prefer.

But put simply, Ralph Nader isn’t a party. He’s one man. Troublesum recently tried to draw an analogy with Lincoln and the Republicans; i pointed out that the Republicans were putting up state-wide slates in 1854.

He may not hurt third party voting, but he doesn’t help. I say this because i’ve never heard much of anything about party building operations between presidential cycles.

So my question becomes: is Ralph Nader trying to empower us or just himself? Is he trying to build a real third way or is this about him?

Every candidate who’s on enough ballots to theoretically win the EC vote should be included in the debates.

Look, if Palin wasn’t on the GOP ticket i’d be voting third party…but i wouldn’t be voting for Nader.

And i still maintain that electing even a handful of independent/third party representatives and a couple of senators would do more to change the political landscape than electing a third party president.

By the way, all, Ritter’s going to go into the booth and vote for McCain and then chuckle to himself as he watches Nader votes pile up. He’ll be smiling and muttering, “stupid liberals.”